Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Opening up Higher Education in Europe

887 views

Published on

Slides from the workshop with universities' executives from 18 European countries held at the European Commission's IPTS on the 26-27th December 2015. The slides bring partial results from the OpenCred and OpenCases studies of the OpenEdu project.

Published in: Education

Opening up Higher Education in Europe

  1. 1. OpenEdu Opening up Higher Education in Europe A workshop with university leaders from 18 European countries on the OpenEdu framework for openness in HE institutions Andreia Inamorato dos Santos Yves Punie Jonatan Castaño Muñoz @ aisantos @yves998 @jcastanom #iptsopen JRC IPTS- Institute for Prospective Technological Studies The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. © European Commission Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
  2. 2. European Commission, Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS): Research institute supporting EU policy-making on socio-economic, scientific and/or technological issues
  3. 3. IPTS IS Unit work on ICT for Learning and Skills Yves Punie, Project Leader Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, IPTS
  4. 4. ICT for Learning and Skills (2005 - …) http://essie.eun.org/ • > 80 publications freely downloadable • Principal clients: DG EAC & DG EMPL Policy • 2013 COM on Opening up Education; E&T 2020; Digital Agenda; New skills and Jobs; EU Recommendation on Key Competences for LLL,… • Juncker priorities: DSM – Jobs, Growth & Investment What: • ICT for modernising and innovating E&T in Europe • 21st century skills for digital economy and society Why: • Evidence for more effective and relevant E&T in Europe
  5. 5. DIGITAL Transforming of E&T DigCompOrg DigComp DigCompTeach OpenEdu Competent citizens Competent Teachers Competent Schools Open Higher Education Institutions EntreComp A coherent approach
  6. 6. Innovation and digital transformation of E&T Digitally-Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) Mainstreaming ICT-enabled innovation for learning (SCALE CCR)
  7. 7. Sense of Initiative and Entrepreneurship framework (EntreComp) Skills and competences development Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) 5 competence areas 21 competences 1. Information 1.1 Browsing, searching, & filtering information 1.2 Evaluating Information 1.3 Storing and retrieving information 2. Communication 2.1 Interacting through technologies 2.2 Sharing information and content 2.3 Engaging in online citizenship 2.4 Collaborating through digital channels 2.5 Netiquette 2.6 Managing digital identity 3. Content creation 3.1 Developing content 3.2 Integrating and re-elaborating 3.3 Copyright and Licences 3.4 Programming 4. Safety 4.1 Protecting devices 4.2 Protecting data and digital identity 4.3 Protecting health 4.4 Protecting the environment 5. Problem solving 5.1 Solving technical problems 5.2 Expressing needs & identifying technological responses 5.3 Innovating, creating and solving using digital tools 5.4 Identifying digital competence gaps
  8. 8. Additional studies 2015 Ongoing • Computational thinking • E-Textbooks in Poland • Learning analytics • Policy models for digital transformation of E&T Publisehd in 2015: • SharedOER • Science 2.0 Draft 2016 WP… • Policy recommendations for opening-up in HE • Piloting DigcompOrg • MoocKnowledge • Socio-economic impact of digital learning
  9. 9. http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eLearningPublications.html
  10. 10. JRC-IPTS project on behalf of DG EAC | 2013-2015 Aim: To propose a framework for opening up practices in higher education institutions Policy: COM 2013 Opening Up Education Why: To raise awareness and provide support to higher education institutions in the design of strategies for opening up education Project main themes: Dimensions of open education, institutional strategies for opening up education OPENEDU OVERVIEW
  11. 11. OPENEDU studies Besides the in-house research OPENEDU runs 5 studies: Moocknowledge: a survey on MOOC learners (ongoing) OpenCred: desk research and case studies on recognition of non-formal learning via MOOCs (May-November 2015) OpenSurvey: a representative survey of higher education institutions in 5 European countries to enquire about their openness strategies (ended Nov 2015) OpenCases: case studies on openness in higher education (ended Nov 2015) BMOpen: exploring a framework for assessing & developing business models for open education (ongoing)
  12. 12. OpenEdu Framework Andreia Inamorato dos Santos Yves Punie Jonatan Castaño Muñoz IPTS 2015
  13. 13. An OE framework: rationale The framework is being designed to support higher education institutions in Europe to make strategic decisions on open education. By proposing a scope for open education and presenting its core and transversal dimensions, the framework aims to promote transparency and to propose a common language for open education in Europe.
  14. 14. How has it being designed?  drawing on studies' results: from previous and current (designed-for-purpose) IPTS research on open education  drawing on results from intensive desk research, to include grey literature (websites, blogs, newspapers, reports etc.)  consulting experts on the theme (1st OpenEdu workshop in June 2014)  consulting the academic literature to check the appearance/validity/context of the dimensions of open education  validating it with experts: online consultation with 60 experts across the globe QUESTIONS Workshop with the target audience: YOU
  15. 15. What does the framework look like? √ Open Education definition • Dimensions: • 6 core: access, content, pedagogy, recognition, collaboration, technology, research • 4 transversal: strategy, leadership, technology, quality For each dimension of open education, the framework brings: √ Dimension definition √ Rationale √ Components √ descriptors √ Example QUESTIONS
  16. 16. Why and how should I/my institution use the framework? How: √ as a foundation for developing insight, inspire vision and see new perspectives and develop new ideas √ as a tool to developing a position √ by doing creative thinking on the framework propositions Why: √ to challenge conventional wisdom √ because it provides a guide to think through critical questions. No framework provides definitive answers. The answers come through the insights generated by the process √ the framework as a box is limiting. But throwing it out is also limiting. Without a framework managers tend to overlook important considerations or put great effort into reinvesting well-understood ideas. The trick is to use the framework without getting trapped in it QUESTIONS
  17. 17. Strategy is the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a different set of activities Michael Porter, 1996
  18. 18. "Plans are worthless. Planning is priceless." Dwight David Eisenhower Open Education Strategic Planning Template √ accompanies the framework √ is openly licensed so can be adapted and distributed √ helps to develop activities, proposes a shared caused √ once completed, provides a direction and guidance about what the institution will do and will not do
  19. 19. Objectives of the workshop For us: √ to discuss and gain insight into all the elements of the framework √ to verify the usability and potential of the framework √ to promote an opportunity for discussion and interaction among university executives from different EU Member States on the subject of open education And for you? Please tell us your name, position, institution and country and what you expect from the workshop – no more than 1 minute
  20. 20. OPEN EDUCATION DEFINITION • Open education is a mode of realising education enabled by digital technologies aiming to widen access and participation to everyone. It offers multiple ways of teaching and learning, building and sharing knowledge, as well as a variety of access routes to formal and non-formal education, bridging them. • (Source: OpenEdu IPTS, 2015 – work in progress)
  21. 21. Group discussion • How is open education defined in your institution? What is the value of an open education strategy? • Does your institution have an open education strategy? If so, what is it? If not, why is this so?
  22. 22. Plenary discussion How do you think the definition presented is fit for purpose? • Open education is a mode of realising education enabled by digital technologies aiming to widen access and participation to everyone. It offers multiple ways of teaching and learning, building and sharing knowledge, as well as a variety of access routes to formal and non-formal education, bridging them.
  23. 23. CORE DIMENSIONS OF OPEN EDUCATION 1- ACCESS 2- CONTENT 3- PEDAGOGY 4- COLLABORATION 5- RECOGNITION 6- RESEARCH (OpenEdu Project, 2015)
  24. 24. TRANSVERSAL DIMENSIONS OF OPEN EDUCATION 7- TECHNOLOGY 8- STRATEGY 9- QUALITY 10- LEADERSHIP (OpenEdu Project, 2015)
  25. 25. Group discussion How do these dimensions fit your existing/future open education plan?
  26. 26. OpenCases Study (OpenEdu and University of Bath's team, 2015) Manuel Souto Otero Robin Shields Predrag Lažetić Andreia Inamorato dos Santos Jonatan Castaño Muñoz Axelle Devaux Stephanie Oberheidt Yves Punie Full report to be published early 2016 Webpage: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/opencases.html OpenCases catalogue of mini cases on open education in Europe: http://bit.ly/1iCTEnk
  27. 27. Case studies on openness in higher education Aim: To understand in detail the motivations, enablers and barriers for higher education institutions to open up education (ends June 2015) What: 7 case studies (University of Bath: M. Souto-Otero, R. Shields, et al.): Case 1- OERu (International) Case 2- TORQUE (Switzerland) Case 3- FUN (France Université Numeriqué) (France) Case 4- TU DELFT (Netherlands) Case 5- Carlos III de Madrid (Spain) Case 6- Open AGH (Poland) Case 7- Open University of Bavaria (Germany) OpenCases IPTS in-house: Case 8- ALISON (Ireland) Case 9- OpenUpEd (European)
  28. 28. ● Access & education as a public good (third mission): • To increase mainstream adoption of open education for all institutions in the world and make HE more financially sustainable and affordable for all learners. "There are currently over 100 million learners who demand HE but do not have access to it". (OERu) • To provide free online education to all, alternative to traditional education an bridging education and work. (ALISON, social enterprise) • Increase and widen access to HE, wider community benefitting from OE: "Materials that are produced with public funding should be available to the public" TUDelft [Also for visibility and reputation building] OpenCases WHY? ● Institutional strategies: Increasing university visibility – Following international trend – Logical step from previous engagement in educational technology (tech. university) – Improve on-campus education (ETH Zurich) ● Political priority (FR): Promoting OE to improve students’ learning outcomes, increase access to lifelong learning and promote the visibility and attractiveness of French education and training offer (FUN)
  29. 29. OpenCases publications • Published: To be published early 2016 (full cases): OpenCases: case studies on openness in higher education Link to the published report
  30. 30. MOOCKnowledge Study MOOCKnowledge consortium: JRC-IPTS OUNL UPM UOC
  31. 31. WHAT IS MOOCKNOWLEDGE? It is a large scale survey aiming to get a better understanding of the European MOOC learners
  32. 32. MOOCs are progressively adopted by EU HEI & individuals 21.8% HEIs offering, 19% planning to offer (OpenSurvey) Evidence-based policy on OE needs to understand better the demand side of MOOCs RATIONALE- WHY?
  33. 33. RATIONALE-WHY? MOOCKnowledge aims to overcome a lack of: • Data at a European level. Most data is US centric. • Large scale and cross- provider data. It would allow comparisons between MOOCS (or groups of MOOCS) and the analysis of subpopulations ( e.g. teacher training, language learners, unemployed people, migrants). Most data come from a single MOOC or MOOC provider. • Long-term data. It would allow the analysis of outcomes of taking a MOOC.
  34. 34. METHODS - HOW? Survey to MOOC learners … from different EU MOOCs- This allows data aggregation and the building of a large scale data set. + … using a standardised and multilingual questionnaire. This allows the comparison between MOOCs or groups of MOOCs. + … collecting data in three moments of time: Pre-MOOC, Post-MOOC and follow- up (after 1 year), that allows to measure long-term impact.
  35. 35. RESEARCH FOCUS - WHAT? • Population details (pre-MOOC) • Socio-economic and demographics • Lifelong learning profile • ICT and (self-directed) learning skills • Expected outcomes and motivations for enrolling (pre-MOOC) • Satisfaction, learning experience, completion … (post-MOOC) • Emerging research topics • Intention – Behaviour gap (pre vs post) • Impact of MOOC on academic and/or job career (follow up)
  36. 36. MOOCKNOWLEDGE DATA COLLECTION FIRST PILOT Blended learning HandsonICT Entrepreneurship Anxiety Management Business Intelligence Genocide TOTAL ENROLLED 1,160 1,672 12,266 16,737 Missing 1,650 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post VALID RESPONSES 29 0 173 27 317 55 715 145 349 155 156 322 1739 704 % RESPONSES 2.5% 0% 10.3% 1.6% 2..6% 0.4% 4.3% 0.9% ---- ---- 9.4% 19.5% --- --- EXEMPLARY RESULTS- FIRST ANALYSIS OF PRE-QUESTIONAIRE (PILOT)
  37. 37. 54.4% 45.6% Male Female 44.8% 63.0% 61.4% 39.9% 32.4% 34.7% 55.2% 37.0% 38.6% 60.1% 67.6% 65.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Male Female GENDER
  38. 38. 13.3% 24.9% 24.5% 24.0% 9.6% 3.3% 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 AGE
  39. 39. 0.3% 1.9%1.2%1.4%0.9% 8.9% 15.5% 17.5% 5.2% 13.8% 12.4% 3.4% 4.6% 4.7% 9.1% 3.5% 5.9% 5.4% 20.7% 22.9% 26.6% 28.6% 14.5% 19.3% 21.7% 75.9% 63.6% 52.8% 42.9% 75.7% 59.6% 59.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Blended Learning Business Intelligence Entrepreneurship Genocide (Hebrew) HandsonICT Test Anxiety All Pre-primary or primary education Lower secondary or upper secondary education Post-secondary non-tertiary education First stage of tertiary education Second stage of tertiary education HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
  40. 40. EMPLOYMENT
  41. 41. Employer support to Life Long Learning (LLL) activities 75% 18% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Encouragement Time Cost 32.09% 8.84% 59.07% yes no Employer does not know about participation N=1077 only workers
  42. 42. Appreciation of MOOCs by employer & Influence of certification Mean=3.4 Mean=4.1 Mean=3.9 Mean=4.1 Mean=4.0 OVERALL MEAN=3.8 From 1 shows no appreciation at all to 7 shows very much apreciattion) OVERALL MEAN= 4.77 From 1 has no influence at all to 8 It has very much influence 3.33 5.22 5.16 4.64 4.46 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
  43. 43. Awareness sources for MOOCs 8.69% 9.15% 34.20% 24.46% 8.80% 26.10% 4.31% 6.21% 9.10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
  44. 44. Past experience with MOOCs 26.2% 10.9% 11.1% 9.9% 7.2% 8.3% 4.4% 2.4% 3.3% 0.8% 5.8% 0.2% 1.6% 0.2% 0.3% 2.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 1.6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 More than 25
  45. 45. Past experience with MOOCs 11.6% 0.3% 2.7% 4.3% 8.2% 11.5% 4.9% 6.3% 7.4% 3.8% 0.6% 38.5% 32.2% 0.6% 3.5% 4.3% 8.0% 8.9% 3.2% 4.1% 5.2% 3.3% 0.6% 25.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 0% From 1- 10% From 11- 20% From 21- 30% From 31- 40% From 41- 50% From 51- 60% From 61- 70% From 71- 80% From 81- 90% From 91- 99% 100% % of completed MOOCs in the past % of completed with certificate in the past N=1243 only those who ever enrolled in a MOOC
  46. 46. JOIN US!!! Are you offering or planning to offer MOOCs? We are looking for cooperation agreements WHY? Use of a EU common questionnaire. Benchmarking for providers Fast data sharing of own data with provider. Contribution to an EU dataset (Anonymised). Combination with local learning analytics data
  47. 47. OpenCred study OpenEdu and University of Leicester's team Gabi Witthaus Andreia Inamorato dos Santos Mark Childs Anne-Christin Tannhäuser Grainne Conole Bernard Nkuyubwatsi Yves Punie Webpage: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/OpenCred/ISUNITWEBSITE-IPTS-JRC-EC.htm Paper "An assessment-recognition matrix for analysing institutional practices in the recognition of open learning http://bit.ly/1QRlbQK (OpenCred Phase I)
  48. 48. OpenCred Results Phase I 1. There are varying degrees of formality of recognition 2. Factors that have the greatest impact on formality of recognition are: • Robustness of assessment • Affordability of assessment for learners • Learners’ eligibility for assessment √ A study based on desk research and interviews √ Phase I completed in 11/2014. Phase II completed in 11/2015 √ Report in the process of being edited for publication Paper published in the e- Learning Papers issue 40 Outcome A typology of institutional practices for the Recognition of Open Learning in Europe
  49. 49. OpenCred Diamond 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recogniti on OpenCred Diamond Phase I
  50. 50. OpenCred findings Typical MOOC with little or no recognition E.g. CARNET (Croatia) MOOC on Developing Courses in Moodle Phase I
  51. 51. Other diamond shapes MOOC with recognition for formally enrolled students e.g. University of Nicosia MOOC on Digital Currencies 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recognition 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recognition Freemium-model MOOC e.g. University of Osnabrück MOOC on Data Structures & Algorithms Phase I
  52. 52. OpenCred Conclusions • Robust assessment is central to recognition – Institutions either pass on the cost to learners or restrict eligibility. • To date recognition is only partial – no whole degrees yet • Online education and assessment still seen by many as less rigorous • On-site exams with identity validation and real-time supervision are seen as being most robust form of assessment • ECTS credits are not yet a widely accepted currency for recognition of open learning Phase I
  53. 53. OpenCred Phase II six elements of MOOC provision appear to be central to facilitating future recognition by other HEIs or employers:  Identity verification of the learner  Suitable supervised assessment  Informative credentials such as (digital) certificates or online badges that acknowledge learning  Quality assurance  Award of credit points  Partnerships and collaboration with potentially “recognizing” institutions or bodies These elements are represented in the OpenCred “traffic light model” as follows: OpenCred, 2015 In phase II of the study OpenCred has developed a model with more elements:
  54. 54. OpenCred's traffic light model OpenCred, 2015
  55. 55. Thank you for your attention! andreia_inamorato_dos.santos@ec.europa.eu yves.punie@ec.europa.eu jonatan.castano-munoz@ec.europa.eu

×